Skip to main content
Glama

CNC Machinability Check

cnc_machinability_check
Read-only

Assess 3-axis CNC machinability of a solid model by counting required setups and detecting undercuts, deep pockets, small radii, and thin walls to flag features needing 5-axis or redesign.

Instructions

3-axis CNC machinability screen off a live solid — pure geometry, NO CAM engine (no toolpath, no gouge check, no holder collision).

Counts SETUPS from a tool-approach census: for every machined face, which of ±X/±Y/±Z can both address it (the normal does not point away — a wall parallel to the tool axis is milled by the cutter's periphery) and reach it (a ray from the face escapes the solid, the same caster the moldability undercut check uses), reduced to a minimum cover. Faces lying on the stock envelope are excluded: they are billet surfaces, and counting them would quote six setups for a plain block.

Findings: 'undercut' (a machined face no principal approach reaches — 5-axis, a special cutter, or a redesign), 'deep_pocket' (depth/(2·corner radius) past max_l_over_d — the corner radius caps the cutter and it cannot reach), 'small_radius' (an internal corner below the smallest cutter quoted, including a SHARP planar corner reported as radius 0, which no rotating tool can produce), 'thin_wall'. pass is false when any fires; more than max_setups is a warning, not a failure. fidelity='correlation', band_pct=None (an ordinal screen — rank variants with score, don't gate on it).

Returns {setups, setup_directions, coverage, machined_faces, stock_faces, machined_area_mm2, min_internal_radius_mm, max_l_over_d_seen, undercut_faces, findings:[{code, severity, feature, detail}], warnings, score, pass, fidelity, band_pct, basis, escalate_to='cnc_time_estimate', limitations, n_faces}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYes
max_setupsNo
min_wall_mmNo
max_l_over_dNo
min_tool_radius_mmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the setup-counting census, the ray-casting reach test, the exclusion of stock-envelope faces, the exact finding codes and their triggers, pass/fail logic, and the fidelity='correlation' limitation. This far exceeds the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded: the boundary 'pure geometry, NO CAM engine' appears immediately. Each sentence carries functional content, and the output return list is justified by the absence of an output schema. It could trim some elaboration, but it is structured and purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the output fields, finding semantics, pass/warning behavior, fidelity limitations, and escalation target. Minor gaps remain: parameter semantics for min_wall_mm and min_tool_radius_mm, and no explicit types for returned fields, but overall it is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives functional meaning for max_setups and max_l_over_d in context, and model is implied by 'live solid.' However, min_wall_mm and min_tool_radius_mm are not directly explained despite the tool mentioning 'thin_wall' and 'smallest cutter quoted.' Partial compensation, not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('screen'), resource ('live solid'), and scope ('3-axis CNC'), and distinguishes itself from CAM engines by explicitly saying 'NO CAM engine (no toolpath, no gouge check, no holder collision).' It also names the escalation target cnc_time_estimate, making the tool's role clear relative to its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives valuable usage guidance: it is a geometric screen, not a CAM estimate; findings are ordinal, so 'rank variants with score, don't gate on it'; and max_setups overage is a warning, not a failure. It names cnc_time_estimate as the escalation path. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need X instead of Y' for all alternatives, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools